Great article, really like how you frame property with violence and the animal instinct for acquisition. A nit pick, if we reduce property to the behaviour of lower animals such as possession, investment, and defence then how do we makes a distinction between theft and legitimate ownership, as in: did I invest in a possession through productive, predatory, or parasitic means?
For me, this is what distinguishes possession from property and makes property/property rights a uniquely human behaviour with moral, ethical dimensions. This does not position property as an arbitrary social construct, instead it grounds in empirical measures such as suppressing free riding and accruing group capacity for violence/defence via high trust commons.
If a possession is stolen then there is no valid claim to “property” and any group making the error of asserting otherwise undermines their ability to facilitate internal cooperation and generate high agency individuals
Of course, this is semantics on some level, but I do see value in having separate terminology for investments that are merely under possession versus investments that are formally acknowledge and insured by a broader group acknowledging the fact that the investment was obtained by the investor bearing the full costs without any free riding on other members of the group
This is where the NLI’s definitions for property and rule of law come in, or that’s how I see it, anyway
totally agree, and that's a society I want to live in. that distinction between theft and ownership is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is the violence monopolist. basically we need a noble violence monopolist to enforce the values you just described, and when it's shown a violation of those values (represented as laws), it punishes the violator, and removes the wrongly gained property or free-riding profits.
I appreciate NLI's approach to rigidly defining things so we can clarify behaviors and incentives we want to see more of. I just learned about you guys recently. really cool group of people. Moritz has been a lot of fun to interact with.
Great article. The other analogy that comes to mind is that you can take the house or clothes of the person arguing against private property. If they react... you made your point.
I need to read the other ones now but it’s got me thinking…
Outsourced violence is a hard but very real pill to swallow for those who have not had to see it. I have to keep micro dosing myself with these brutal reals.
But this property, it makes my mind wonder to the excesses, I was looking up vintage advertisements today and thinking about how you can be sold something beyond the basic needs. How we live beyond our needs. They were very atmospheric, poetic advertisements. I wanted what they were selling, and not even the object as such, but it’s vague promise, it’s ‘aura’.
In a way the advertisement possesses you and wants to become your property.
And then I thought of marriage and people becoming property in a way. Or sharing property, that binding. And the excess of need, desire, which transforms property into ‘home’.
It becomes very mythical. And in a way the myth is civilisation in that it allows you to outsource the violence, the brutality of the material, and enjoy its aura.
Great article, really like how you frame property with violence and the animal instinct for acquisition. A nit pick, if we reduce property to the behaviour of lower animals such as possession, investment, and defence then how do we makes a distinction between theft and legitimate ownership, as in: did I invest in a possession through productive, predatory, or parasitic means?
For me, this is what distinguishes possession from property and makes property/property rights a uniquely human behaviour with moral, ethical dimensions. This does not position property as an arbitrary social construct, instead it grounds in empirical measures such as suppressing free riding and accruing group capacity for violence/defence via high trust commons.
If a possession is stolen then there is no valid claim to “property” and any group making the error of asserting otherwise undermines their ability to facilitate internal cooperation and generate high agency individuals
Of course, this is semantics on some level, but I do see value in having separate terminology for investments that are merely under possession versus investments that are formally acknowledge and insured by a broader group acknowledging the fact that the investment was obtained by the investor bearing the full costs without any free riding on other members of the group
This is where the NLI’s definitions for property and rule of law come in, or that’s how I see it, anyway
totally agree, and that's a society I want to live in. that distinction between theft and ownership is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is the violence monopolist. basically we need a noble violence monopolist to enforce the values you just described, and when it's shown a violation of those values (represented as laws), it punishes the violator, and removes the wrongly gained property or free-riding profits.
I appreciate NLI's approach to rigidly defining things so we can clarify behaviors and incentives we want to see more of. I just learned about you guys recently. really cool group of people. Moritz has been a lot of fun to interact with.
Great article. The other analogy that comes to mind is that you can take the house or clothes of the person arguing against private property. If they react... you made your point.
ha, very true. thanks man.
So glad I came across this gem. Dimitri, never stop writing my friend!
Much appreciated my good man
I need to read the other ones now but it’s got me thinking…
Outsourced violence is a hard but very real pill to swallow for those who have not had to see it. I have to keep micro dosing myself with these brutal reals.
But this property, it makes my mind wonder to the excesses, I was looking up vintage advertisements today and thinking about how you can be sold something beyond the basic needs. How we live beyond our needs. They were very atmospheric, poetic advertisements. I wanted what they were selling, and not even the object as such, but it’s vague promise, it’s ‘aura’.
In a way the advertisement possesses you and wants to become your property.
And then I thought of marriage and people becoming property in a way. Or sharing property, that binding. And the excess of need, desire, which transforms property into ‘home’.
It becomes very mythical. And in a way the myth is civilisation in that it allows you to outsource the violence, the brutality of the material, and enjoy its aura.
Not sure what I mean by aura 🤔 it’s vibe